Article contents
Do the “Haves” Come Out Ahead over Time? Applying Galanter's Framework to Decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 1925-1988
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 April 2024
Abstract
This investigation examines the success of various types of litigants appearing before the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1925 to 1988. The analysis parallels the earlier studies by Songer and Sheehan (1992) and Wheeler et al. (1987) that applied the core concepts introduced by Galanter's groundbreaking analysis of why the “haves” come out ahead to study litigant success on the U.S. Courts of Appeals and state courts of last resort. The findings suggest that repeat player litigants with substantial organizational strength (“haves”) are much more likely to win in the federal courts of appeals than one-shot litigants with fewer resources. The “haves” win more frequently in published decisions, even after controls are introduced for the ideological makeup of the panel. The advantage in appellate litigation enjoyed by repeat player “haves” is remarkably consistent over time. In particular, the U.S. government has compiled an impressive record in these courts by dominating opposing litigants over the 64-year period of analysis.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Law & Society Review , Volume 33 , Issue 4: Do the “Haves” Still Come Out Ahead? , 1999 , pp. 811 - 832
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1999 by the Law and Society Association
Footnotes
The data analyzed in this work are taken from the United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, Donald R. Songer, principal investigator, supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. SES-89-12678. The database and its documentation are available to scholars at the Web site of the Program for Law and Judicial Politics, Michigan State University: <http:/www.ssc.msu.edu/~pls/pljp>. Although the authors appreciate this support, which made the research reported in this paper possible, all findings and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
References
- 84
- Cited by